TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lauses in the said sale deed had been referred to by the CIT(A) in paragraph 7 of the order dated 28.3.2018. This issue was also considered by the Tribunal on the appeal filed by the Revenue and noting the factual position, the Tribunal confirmed the finding of the CIT(A). Though this issue, which is argued by Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, is not raised as a substantial question of law for consideration, yet we have tested the correctness of the finding and we find that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are right in concluding that the property was a commercial property as could be seen from the conditions contained in the said sale deed dated 24.3.1995. Therefore, there is no ground made out by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Section 2(29A) read with Section 2(42A) is holding for more than 36 months? and iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that Explanation 1(b) of Section 2(42A) is applicable and the period of holding of the asset by the previous owner also needs to be considered even though the assessee did not receive the assset through gift or will as mentioned in Section 49(1)(ii) but by settlement deed? 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/assessee. 4. The assessee, who is an individual, filed the return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Tribunal and it was dismissed by the impugned order. 7. Going by the said document dated 19.12.2010, which was titled as settlement deed, the Assessing Officer held the same to be not a gift. The correctness of this finding was tested by the CIT(A), who, in our opinion, had done an elaborate factual exercise, gone through the covenants and conditions contained in the said document dated 19.12.2010 and held that the said document was only a deed of gift because it was voluntary as there was no consideration passed on and the donee accepted the gift unconditionally. The correctness of the factual finding was tested by the Tribunal, which had also gone through the issue in detail, taken note of the decision of the same Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l position, the Tribunal confirmed the finding of the CIT(A). 11. Though this issue, which is argued by Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, is not raised as a substantial question of law for consideration, yet we have tested the correctness of the finding and we find that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are right in concluding that the property was a commercial property as could be seen from the conditions contained in the said sale deed dated 24.3.1995. Therefore, there is no ground made out by the Revenue to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and we also hold that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
